The result of the “Camera Shootout 2018 – Canon C200 vs Panasonic EVA1” hosted by Zacuto is now available to watch on YouTube. During this shootout, Zacuto put the Panasonic EVA1 and Canon C200 through a series of tests in order to try and declare a “winner”. After watching this battle carefully, here are my thoughts.
The tests were performed in order to push the Canon C200 and the Panasonic EVA1 beyond their limits. The cameras were forced to perform in challenging environments, in order to explore which camera will “break” under the pressure.
As opposed to previous shootouts like the “Great Camera Shootout 2011” which demonstrated a side by side comparisons between DSLRs vs. very pricey high-end cinema cameras, this shootout was meant to compare two popular cameras that share a similar price tag, form factor and functions. More on preparing this shootout (including BTS pics) can be found here.
Canon C200 vs Panasonic EVA1 – Zacuto Camera Shootout 2018:
Watch the full show:
Tests performed:
Day Time Interior
Night Time Interior
Day Time Exterior
Night Time Exterior
Motion Blur/Rolling Shutter
Slow Motion
The panel:
Bruce Logan, ASC designed and administered a series of tests in Chicago with Mitch Gross from Panasonic and Ken Rowe from Canon.
The process:
Shooting in various formats (raw, log, mov, mp4).
Applying LUTs.
Color grading at Canon’s facility in Burbank, LA — with all parties present.
Camera Shootout 2018 Full Test Footage 4k – Panasonic EVA1 vs Canon C200:
How to examine the results?
Of course the best way would be to download the files, but this is not possible yet. All we have is the YouTube video. EDIT: Now you can download raw files and more here! The most logical observation would be through targeting the “flat” looking images (RAW and Log) and trying to see differences in the dynamic range, highlights, shadows and noise. Then, look at the graded images as those offer a possible feel and look. The LUT versions are nice to have, but less important for the comparison.
Regarding the graded versions, please remember that the colorist has a crucial role in defining and creating the final look, and it is possible that a different colorist would come up with a whole different color approach! In spite of that, this is a good reference and you should check it out.
Rolling shutter
Don’t forget to check out the rolling shutter test in the last minute of the YouTube video. Surprisingly, both cameras have some serious issues with rolling shutter.
Digital cameras are like film stocks
Bruce Logan, ASC said something very interesting here. Bruce compared the two cameras to film stocks – meaning, there is no good or bad here, just a different look and style. In my opinion, this statement is very true. Every camera has its own style. Both of them are capable of processing a huge amount of information and thus grant respected results in preserving highlights, shadows and colors. But again, in a different style.
Final thoughts
Canon has two recording format options – MP4 and RAW. As stated in the discussion, the RAW output from the EVA1 will be available sometime “before NAB”. As recording in RAW is much tougher and will not “break” easily in post, I find that not being able to compare the two is the main mismatch here. Maybe a thing to consider for the next camera shootout…
When it comes to sharing the visual results, I have decided not to post screenshots from the YouTube 4K comparison, since they don’t seem too accurate. I can see some resolution and/or compression issues in the YouTube video, although the files were exported to YouTube in ProRes 422. Somehow, it doesn’t look accurate enough for examination. Of course, this is my personal opinion.
EDIT: The YouTube link above has been replaced by a 4K link, means that now the quality is high and good enough for examination.
This was a tough test. Both cameras did well! There is no winner here. Just a different look – like using a different film stock.
What do you think of this shootout? Can it help you to come up with a decision regarding which camera to purchase? Share with us your thoughts in the comment section below.

Tilta has updated their popular line of handheld gimbals. The new Gravity G2 and G2X gimbals feature updated specs, ergnomics and features.
The two models are almost identically when digging through the specs but there’s one significant differene: The G2X model sports an angled roll axis which can be configured to sit either in front of, or behind your given camera, resulting in an unobstructed view of the LCD screen.
Tilta Gravity G2 & G2X Gimbal
Both models offer a payload of up to 8 lbs (3.6 kg). The pan and tilt axes feature full 360° of rotation while the roll axis can be rotated 60° to the left or right. In order get you up to speed, watch the introduction video below:
Both models can be operated in under- or overslung modes and both gimbals offer the same set of features.
Choose from four modes of operation: pan-follow mode, tilt-lock aka “flashlight” mode, fully-stabilized aka “chicken head” mode and roll-lock aka “dutch angle” mode. The included Manfrotto plate allows for fast and easy set up changes to a Manfrotto tripod. A Newly designed receiving plate is locked down via dual screws while a balancing plate keeps the Gravity G2 gimbal secure for manually balancing.
A measuring scale makes repetitive balancing a thing of the past. Balance once, remember your marks and repeat with ease each time you need to re-balance the same camera package. Two standard Arri rosettes open the door for a vast variety of accessories.
Tilta Gravity G2 and G2X.
The tilt motor offers a new 5V MiniUSB out for powering a Nucleus-Nano Motor. An additional 14.8V DC output for powering your camera and camera accessories is also included.
The whole unit is powerd via standard rechargeable 18650 batteries (which are NOT included) and since the power consumption is rated pretty low, one set of 4 batteries should keep you up and running for up to 10 hours.
Tilta Assistant App
The dedicated Tilta Assistant app offers a full set of calibration tools for the Gravity G2. It connects via Bluetooth and can be used to calibrate individual motors, including torque, acceleration and speed for your specific needs.
The app offers a full remote control for your gimbal, too. Furthermore, a timelapse mode is included and firmware updates can be transfered to the Gravity G2.
Accessories
When purchasing the Tilta Gravity G2 or G2X, a variety of useful accessories is included.
A transport case is missing though but can be purchased seperately. Actually, the list of available accessories is pretty long, indeed. Since a handheld gimbal with a, say, Canon C200 mounted to it might be a little heavy, a dedicated second handgrip is definitely worth a closer look. Tilta offers a vast variety of accessories for the Gravity G2 & G2X.
All the accessories for the older G1 model are compatible with the new Gravity G2 and G2X models. And, due to the standart Arri rosettes lots of third-party accessories will fit perfectly, too.
Pricing and Availability
Both units sell for $730 each ($790 when bundeled with a transport case). The Gravity G2 and G2X gimbals are already available and if you’re in the LA area you might want to stop by the new Tilta flagship store, located in Burbank.
Links: Tilta website
Do you already use Tilta products? Share your thoughts in the comments below!

A new line of Tilta cage has been announced for medium sized camcorders. The shoulder-mount configured rigs are designed specifically for the Canon C200, Sony FS5, Panasonic EVA1 and Blackmagic URSA Mini Pro.
Tilta has become quite well known for it’s camera-specific cages. We’ve seen heavy support in the top and low end spectrums of the market, with skin-like support for RED as well as modular designs for mirrorless cameras.
Tilta has now taken a turn to the mid-range market, targeting specifically the Canon C200, Panasonic EVA1, Sony FS5 and Blackmagic URSA Mini Pro.
Speaking on the line as a whole (each is very similar, just ergonomic shifts to cater for specific cameras) the Tilta cage is broken down into 4 main components:
Bottom Plate with shoulder support
Top Plate
Rear battery plate
Extension arm
Bottom Plate
The bottom plate is the heart of the system. It has 15mm LWS rods on the front, rosettes on both sides, 15mm rod mounts to the rear (non pass-through) and padded shoulder support.
Pretty standard stuff, but there are a couple of nice unique features.
The plate is both VCT and ARRI Dovetail compatible – two solid industry-standard mounting options for tripod mounting.
There is also a slider plate that mounts directly to the camera, this allows fore/aft adjustment to perfect balance on the shoulder, but the neat little feature I like is the lens/lens adaptor support on the front.
Lens mounts and particularly lens adaptors on mid range cameras are not so solid; you can get a lot of play with the likes of the Sony FS5 and metabones adaptor.
This lens support can help prevent movement, mounting to the plate itself keeps things very compact.
Extension Arm
The extension arm bolts to the rosette on the side of the bottom plate, extending the native camera handle for better ergonomics. The extension cable is brand specific (Sony/Panasonic/Canon etc.).
It would’ve been nice to see one-touch adjustment to this arm like we see with other manufacturers.
Top Plate
The top plate is where features changes model to model.
All offer camera to native top handle mounting in a compact fashion. The Tilta cage for the EVA1, FS5 and USRA Mini Pro all have front and rear 15mm rod support.
Fronts can be used for accessories like magic arms for external monitors, follow focus motors, recorders etc. The rears are reserved for the battery plate.
The Canon C200 Tilta cage top plate doesn’t feature front rod support, instead has a rosette on the rear for the battery plate, and “precision fitting and grip for Optional C200 top Handle”.
Battery Plate
All battery plates are primarily designed to mount via the top plate of the Tilta cage. I really like this way of rigging; it gives you the ability to strip the bottom plate if you want to go lightweight; it also gives you greater adjustment of fore/aft on the camera on the bottom plate.
If you prefer to mount them on the bottom plate, this can be done via hex screw and simply using the 15mm rods on the bottom plate.
Battery plates are available in Gold or V-Mount, and have the following outputs:
• (2) 12v DC outputs
• (1) 8v DC output
• (1) 14.8V PTAP output
Availability is expected early March 2018 for each Tilta cage, with pricing range from $650-$730.

As we reported last month, Apple is now shipping the new iMac Pro. Like a lot of people, I was excited to get my hands on the fastest Mac ever created. Having tried it out on a project for the past two weeks, I thought I’d share my iMac Pro hands-on review with you all now.
Out of the box
The first thing I noticed, of course, was the beautiful slate grey finish of both the iMac Pro and its accessories. Now that black is back, I guess champagne gold won’t be far around the corner! Aside from its good looks, the next thing to tickle my fancy was the huge array of ports on the back. Having committed to updating all my peripherals to USB-C last year, I was already in good shape to take advantage of the four Thunderbolt 3 ports. The inclusion of four USB 3 ports were still welcome, however, as it meant my legacy external SSDs and DaVinci Resolve 14 dongle could easily be accommodated too.
Configuration
The unit I’ve been reviewing is the mid-range iMac Pro, which I think gives the best balance between cost and performance. This configuration can be yours for the princely sum of £6,332.50 excluding VAT…
27-inch, 10-bit, 500 nits brightness, Wide colour (P3), Retina 5K display (5120×2880)
3.0GHz 10-core Intel Xeon W processor, Turbo Boost up to 4.5GHz
64GB 2666MHz DDR4 ECC memory
2TB SSD
Radeon Pro Vega 64 with 16GB of HBM2 memory
Magic Mouse 2 – Space Grey
Magic Keyboard with Numeric Keypad – Space Grey
Now, I’m not for a minute going to pretend that that isn’t a lot of money to spend on a computer. However, those that refuse to see beyond the price are ignoring that this is a hell of a lot of premium hardware Apple are giving us. I’d argue it represents better cost per performance than the Mac Pro did when it re-launched in 2013, and pretty much every facility I visit has a Mac Pro in their suite(s).
Upgradibility
As you may have heard, the iMac Pro can’t be opened up by the end user, have its innards ripped out and be upgraded with new bits. This seems to have got some people rather cross, which I must say I find amusing. You can’t even stick a micro SD card in the £1,000 iPhone X, for goodness sake; why are people surprised that the iMac Pro isn’t user-upgradeable?! Seriously, though, while this may be of concern to a facility looking to kit out a building with many, many workstations – where their priority will be prolonging the usefulness of these systems to avoid having to sell/chuck out kit for as long as possible – it is of no concern to me, nor to most small businesses. For those who do want user-upgradeability, Apple is working on two new solutions right now – an external Thunderbolt 3 breakout box and an all-new modular Mac Pro. But for me personally, the last thing I am interested in is ripping apart my computer and swapping out components. After all, it’s not 1977 and I don’t spend my evenings at a home brew computer club! These days, I think most individuals simply buy the best thing they can afford that will eat up everything they throw at it, and when they feel like it’s not quite coping with what they’re asking it do to (probably in two or three years’ time) they will sell it and put that money towards the next one. And Apple computers still keep their value remarkably well, just check listings on eBay.
Speed
OK, I’ll be honest, this is not one of those reviews with lots of benchmarks. That information is already out there anyway and, to save you the bother of reading them, they all show that the iMac Pro is faster than anything else Apple has ever made. For me, I was far more interested in knowing whether or not it felt faster. Too often I buy something because it is 30% better at this, or 2x better at that, but you get it home and play with it, and those numbers just don’t translate into real life gains. So, rather unscientifically, I started editing a project I had logged on my MacBook Pro to see if I would immediately feel the difference.
I did. Oh, boy, did I feel it! I mean, this thing is just silly fast. Every time it rendered, or analysed my clips for stabilisation or optical flow, I would watch with delight as the little background process wheel span around so fast, you’d miss it if you blinked. Playing back 4K, 6K, even 8K footage didn’t seem to bother it in the least. It would occasionally drop a frame here or there if I was playing back 8K ProRes 422 HQ, but 8K ProRes LT was fine and, quite frankly, the odd dropped frame here and there doesn’t stop you editing. The big real-world test for me was, could I edit 10-bit 50p 4K raw from my C200 natively, with no dropped frames and seamless changes in direction with the transport keys (I do like to rock back and forth on J and L when editing on the fly). The answer was a big fat YES. In fact, even if I deliberately whizzed my playhead back and forth as quickly as possible, it still skimmed through with ease, as if it were just some 8-bit compressed HD rubbish! ;)
Now, one of the things that I do think is worth measuring accurately, is export times. I wanted to quantify how much time someone could expect to save when exporting multiple deliverables, as this is something that has a direct impact on everyone’s working day. I timed how long it took to do two exports of a 5m 46s case study I was delivering, and then compared that to my top-spec 2017 15” MacBook Pro. I exported a ProRes 422 4K 25p master and an H.264 HD 25p deliverable and here are the results:
15” MacBook Pro 2017 – Master Export – 11m 01s
15” MacBook Pro 2017 – Client Deliverable – 21m 43s
iMac Pro – Master Export – 3m 10s
iMac Pro – Client Deliverable – 6m 27s
Just look at those numbers! People who buy the new iMac Pro might have to take up an extra hobby to fill up all their spare time!
**UPDATE**
My friend and fellow cinema5D writer, Tim Fok, asked me to do a head-to-head with his iMac 5K, as he was wondering if it was worth upgrading and wanted a direct comparison. So we both did a basic transcode with the same 51 second, 6K, .r3d file. We exported to HD Pro Res 4444, making sure all our settings were exactly the same in REDCINE-X PRO and here are our results:
iMac Pro – 0m 56s
iMac 5K (Late 2014), 4Ghz i7, 32GB RAM, AMD Radeon R9 4GB GPU – 2m 53s
Conclusion
I have several jobs booked in for February and March that need to be shot in raw and mastered in 4K, HDR. For me, the iMac Pro was designed for exactly these types of workflow. The incredible display is clearly designed to showcase this type of content and the horsepower is more than enough to cut and grade this stuff natively and quickly. As long as you configure it with a spec that will see you through the next two to three years, you won’t care about the lack of upgradability. And if you think that building a PC with the same spec hardware is going to save you a fortune, think again too. Once you factor in that outstanding display, you really aren’t that far off and, besides, you can’t put a cost on that lovely, shiny, black Apple logo ;)
Are you considering spending big bucks on the new iMac Pro? Let us know in the comments!

In this guest post, Stewart Addison explains what shooting RAW really means, the different kinds of RAW, and when and how to implement a RAW workflow.
In case you missed it, Canon recently announced the C200, it’s first sub-$10,000 cinema camera to shoot RAW. As with every announcement for a RAW camera, folks on the Internet have been quick to point out how simply untenable RAW file sizes and workflows are for a large swathe of filmmakers. While it is true that shooting RAW is tricky, time consuming, and hard drive-filling, the benefits absolutely outweigh the costs. Even for quick-turnaround shooters, the precision, image-richness, and future-proofing RAW shooting options provide make it a must-have feature for anyone buying a cinema camera today.
What is “RAW”, really?
DaVinci Resolve – a free software from Blackmagic Design that can handle RAW.
Put simply, RAW footage is the plain, unprocessed, data from your camera sensor. To edit RAW footage as a moving image, it has to be processed in post with programs like Blackmagic Resolve, RED Cine-X Pro, ARRIRAW and in a limited capacity Adobe Premiere Pro. When shooting in other formats, the camera (or external recorder) will process what the sensor ingests into said format, losing sensor data in the process. With RAW, all of the data collected in the sensor is available to use in post.
Shooting in H.264 on a Canon 5D MKIII, for instance, compresses the file size to 1/18th of its uncompressed stream by only fully recording one full frame per half second, and taking in only visible changes to cover the other 13 frames (in 24fps) that aren’t being fully captured. Pair this with the baked-in picture profiles you recorded with and you’re left with very little data to play with in post. Any exposure fixes or color changes you need could prove difficult and might result in your image breaking down.
Even with a larger codec, those risks persist, though to a lesser degree. Uncompressed video, which processes the footage into video but doesn’t apply any block, wavelet, or temporal-based compression is a great way to get a lot of information, but you still lose bit-depth (color information). Uncompressed video usually comes in at 10-bit, giving you 1024 possible tonal values, whereas 12-bit RAW has 4,096 possible values.
Moreover, RAW data doesn’t bake in ISO and Kelvin (white balance) data, allowing you to change it in post. To sum up the RAW experience, I will call on a fantastic quote from Kurt Lancaster.
“To shoot RAW means to thicken the color of your images, making them more dense—a lot more data provides more headroom to push and pull footage in post, to correct errors made during shooting, as well as to shape the look and feel of your film.”
The advantages are plenty and aren’t nearly as costly as they seem.
Storage varies
RAW footage can take up a lot of storage… But there are solutions.
Yes, storage space fills up quickly when you shoot RAW. An hour of 16:9 ARRI Alexa ARRIRAW footage will eat up about 605 gigabytes, the URSA Mini Pro takes up about 648 gigabytes in 4.6k RAW (CinemaDNG RAW), and the C200 comes in at around 512 gigabytes per hour. It’s a lot, especially if you want to keep a backup or your RAW video. If storage is a problem, however, you have solutions.
When you shoot RAW, you make your major color/exposure changes before you process the footage, meaning that you can vastly condense your file sizes to fit your needs before anything is added to your hard drive. Your camera still needs hefty storage options, but backing up your footage to your computer becomes as friendly as you need it to be.
The new Canon C200 features smaller files thanks to its Cinema RAW light format.
Moreover, you still have resolution and camera choices at your disposal. The C200 offers a Cinema RAW Light format that’s considered 3 to 5 times smaller than traditional RAW formats. But wait, there’s more!
Not all RAW cameras shoot truly uncompressed RAW, giving you additional options.
If 12-bit color depth covers what the human eye is able to see, and truly RAW sensor data comes in the form of uncompressed RAW files, then the standard for pure RAW output would be 12-bit uncompressed RAW files. The ARRI Alexa XT can internally record RAW data this way at the price of nearly one terabyte per hour of footage. If that sounds like a lot to you (yes, it’s a lot), there are other options.
RED cameras offer a variety of compression options.
RED approaches RAW differently. REDCODE RAW (.R3D files) uses a variable bitrate wavelet technique that can compress RAW files at various levels for smaller storage space, and has improved from 12-bit to 16-bit over the years. RED .R3D files have also been optimized for different workflows, allowing filmmakers to preview and work with footage at lower resolutions while retaining the information of the full resolution image.
According to RED, wavelet compression at 3:1 is mathematically lossless, while 5:1 and 8:1 are visually lossless. This compression can allow you to shoot RAW with smaller file sizes than shooting ProRes, which is some achievement. This isn’t a purist’s RAW recording, but for many the differences are negligible and they are overwhelmed by the benefits. As technology advances, more cameras will likely take the RED .R3D model, and many already have.
Sony’s CineAlta cinema cameras offer varying degrees of compressed RAW using external recorders, with the benefit being the ability to record at high frame rates and with high resolution. As noted above, the C200 takes a similar approach to compressed RAW with Cinema RAW Light. However, the first iteration of RAW for Canon’s cinema cameras, the one in the C500 and C700, is very different though.
Canon’s top of the line C700.
With the Canon C700 camera, Canon joins ARRI as having the closest to a purely RAW output, with 12-bit depth. The Canon C500 records 10-bit external instead of ARRI’s 12-bit (or Sony and RED’s 16-bit). Canon Cinema RAW (.RMF) files pridefully contain no processes applied to the data coming out of the image sensor. These are huge 4k files, bigger than 4:3 ARRIRAW at 2.8k. Cinema RAW Light (compressed RAW) looks like a different direction for Canon it remains to be seen whether the company maintains its RAW purity with its flagship line.
Finally, RAW recording isn’t all internal, shifting the gear up, external RAW recording adds cost to your bottom line. The C200 offers truly economical RAW options because it offers lower file sizes and records internally (as opposed to the C500, which requires an external recorder). The same goes for RED and post-Alexa classic ARRI cameras (internal RAW recording). Sony, on the other hand, only offers RAW via external recorder on its cameras. While that adds money and hassle to your bottom line, external recorders often provide the extra horsepower to add features otherwise unavailable internally, so they make sense for certain filmmakers.
The point is, RAW is not a singular, unfriendly, codec. Its benefits are available to filmmakers with varying needs and workflow priorities, you just have to do your homework first. Speaking of workflow priorities…
Not as much time as you think
It seems impossible to come across a review for a RAW camera that doesn’t mention how RAW isn’t an option for quick turnaround shooters. First of all, what is quick turnaround? Two days? One day? Six hours? Yes, I’ll concede that time-sensitive news coverage has little benefit for RAW video, but a lot of filmmakers who work in quick turnaround environments aren’t on such a short leash. RAW workflows are possible if you know what you’re doing, especially when shooting RED .R3D RAW which has native support in Adobe Premiere Pro, you can drag the .R3D files straight to the timeline.
First of all, each batch of RAW footage is not some new, unexplored, color playground. You can monitor through different LUTs and color spaces while shooting, and have them ready in your project settings for processing. With a little pre-production organization, you can know the look you’re going to get before you step on set and get the footage processing the minute your card has been filled up.
Working with a LUT on a Blackmagic Design Video Assist 4K.
No time for specialized settings for each new project? Find a color outcome you like and make it your default for every project. You not only get the rich images RAW provides, but you’ve also tuned the colors to your taste.
Finally, processing time doesn’t have to be lost time. I’ve found that, for most projects, a day of shooting would yield 2-3 hours of total processing time. That’s time that can be cut into chunks on-set if you have a DIT, or it’s time that can be spent while you’re busy with other obligations. If you’re organized, processing doesn’t have to drastically alter your completion time.
You don’t HAVE to shoot RAW
Unless you’re shooting on a Digital Bolex (R.I.P) or RED DSMC1 camera, your RAW-shooting camera has other recording options. When you get a project where RAW isn’t right for that project, don’t shoot with it! When you get a project where RAW is beneficial, you’ll be very glad to have all of that flexibility in post-production.
It’s worth it
With RAW, you not only get rich, beautiful colors and the ability to correct mistakes and adjust ISO and Kelvin (white balance) after the fact, you get creative freedom you aren’t afforded with any other codec. You can find the exact look you want without compromise and, if you change your mind, you can go back and reprocess that footage for an entirely different look later. RAW footage is the digital version of a film negative. Once you have that at your disposal, you definitely won’t want to go back.
How prevalent is RAW footage in your day-to-day work? What particular challenges do you find in working with it? Let us know in the comments below!

In terms of specs, the C200 is certainly Canon’s most interesting camera since their entry into the cinema market. A week after the announcement of this affordable 4K RAW camera, we had a chance to put it to the test, shoot a lot of RAW and MP4 footage and create this Canon C200 Review for you. If you’re interested in cinema cameras, or have questions about the performance of the C200, what we found will probably be for you.
Please note: I did not notice any firmware related flaws, but the camera tested was still on a beta firmware.
Canon C200 Review – A Day With Canon’s New Baby
Canon kindly invited me to attend a press event surrounding their new Canon C200 cinema camera. Fortunately for you, I was also given the chance to record a lot of footage with it and draw my own conclusions for this C200 review. At this point I must admit that after having spent time with the camera and seeing the footage, there are a lot of good arguments that speak in favour of it! Nevertheless, I’ll run you through all the pros and cons I found.
Disclaimer: At cinema5D we have tested almost every cinema camera on the market. This gives us a pretty good idea about a camera’s strengths and weaknesses in order to recommend the best tool for the job. Still, keep in mind that this C200 review reflects my subjective opinion, derived from my own experience and shooting style. I hope it will help you make an informed decision for your own work.
The Features at a Glance
Here’s what the Canon C200 promises on paper:
RAW
Internal 12-bit 4K RAW
Smaller file size with “Cinema RAW Light”
Records RAW to CFast 2.0
Up to 59.94 fps in 4K 10-bit
MP4
Internal UHD MP4 recording – 150 Mbps
Records MP4 to SD card (>U3)
Up to 59.94 fps in UHD 8-bit (4:2:0)
Up to 120fps in HD with full sensor readout
Additional Features of Interest
Super35 CMOS sensor & active EF mount
Advanced Dual Pixel CMOS Auto Focus with touch screen and face detect
5 Internal ND filters (up to ND 10!)
Good low-light performance and low noise
HDMI and SDI outputs
XLR inputs on the body
Proxy Recording onto SD card
“So what does this mean?” some might ask. Well, 4K RAW in a camera that costs $6,000 sounds great, and the fact that it can shoot up 60p RAW and up to 120fps in HD is very useful. A package offering the features, ergonomics, service and quality that Canon is known for are all very convincing arguments that make this camera a no-brainer for many filmmakers.
On the other hand, not everyone needs to shoot RAW – in fact I talked to a lot of people who actually really prefer not to. It offers the highest quality and can give you the most organic, cinematic and expensive-looking footage, but it also involves a process of transcoding and requires a lot of storage space. As such, if RAW is not used to its full potential, it may not be beneficial to many users like documentary and event shooters, for whom RAW alone may not be a good selling point.
The Canon C200 also offers MP4 with a compression of 150 Mbps, a standard h.264 compression that most entry level prosumer cameras get these days. But for many professionals, this doesn’t provide high-enough quality and, as a result, this camera seems to offer something that suits high-end shoots as well as the low end, but there remains a gap in the middle. At the moment, one would have to use the higher-priced C300 mark II to fill this gap.
BUT before we draw our final conclusions just based on spec sheets (suggestion: don’t do that), let’s put the camera through its paces and see how RAW and MP4 actually work in the field.
Canon C200 RAW Footage
The first thing most people will be interested to see is the RAW footage out of the Canon C200. For this C200 review I spent a couple of hours putting the new camera through the elements, ranging from harsh sunlight, to strong wind and eventually pouring rain. I love to be in the weather when it comes to shooting cinematic images, so the shoot was very enjoyable too. Check out my footage below:
I strongly urge you to either download the source file from Vimeo and watch this on a good 4K screen. It’s worth it.
Workflow
To see how the RAW footage performs, I created a very strong grading look that would heavily play with colors and contrast. First, I converted the Canon C200 CRM files (which are single files by the way, not photo sequences) into Apple ProRes 4444, so I had a format I could easily work with. The reason is that CRM is currently only compatible with a limited number of software applications, so I converted inside DaVinci Resolve 14 Beta and then went on to edit my footage in Adobe Premiere Pro. Canon recommends to use their own conversion tool, which allows you to select one of their log gamma profiles. I was told that Adobe apps will support CRM natively in the near future too.
The conversion in both DaVinci Resolve 14 Beta and the Canon Cinema RAW Development tool took a little under 30 minutes for 16 minutes of footage on an 8-core Mac Pro.
RAW?
At first I did not expect full-fledged RAW quality. The camera just seemed too easy to use and recording RAW is usually less convenient. Either the camera is bulky, too expensive or too difficult to use, or lacks built-in ND filters, etc… But I was surprised. The Canon C200 delivers excellent 12-bit RAW files that hold up impressively. The quality is organic, the rolloff is soft and most importantly, there is a lot of shadow information.
Canon C200 Review – Dynamic Range Observation
For the shot above I was standing underneath a large tree. As you can see, it had lots of thick leaves, while in the open, the midday sun was burning down. If you know this kind situation, then you know that the leaves under the tree should be very dark and the spots where the sun hit the wet leaves should be very overexposed. I had no trouble pulling the overexposed parts back and pushing the shadowy leaves into light. Actually, with any shot I took I had no trouble getting everything exposed correctly. I took some shots with and without ND just to see heavy overexposure and underexposure, and in the grade I was able to match both shots without noticing any noise whatsoever.
This is what impressed me the most. I could literally shoot any way I wanted, I didn’t even have to expose correctly. The footage (all shot at native ISO 800) is so clean, that I can push the material without risking a noisy image. The grading experience was very pleasing and of course I could easily control colours, while getting an overall organic look. As we know, the sensor is mostly similar to the previous Canon C camera sensors so not much has changed there, and people who are familiar with C cameras will appreciate the low-noise organic look. While the dynamic range may not be quite up there with the Arri ALEXA, the overall RAW from the Canon C200 screams quality and is certainly a professional high-end cinema tool that you should try before dismissing it.
Canon C200 with 50mm Cine Prime Lens
How Much Data Does the C200 RAW Produce?
This is an important question. While the new Cinema RAW Light format has been called 3 times and 5 times smaller than traditional RAW formats, the camera still produces a lot of data. The benefit of the Canon C200 though, is that the media (CFast 2.0) is not proprietary and is becoming cheaper and cheaper, so it is easy to get several CFast cards.
Canon C200 writing RAW data
I shot with a Transcend 128GB CFast 2.0 card in 4K 24p – This gave me 16 minutes of recording time.
Those 16 minutes turned into another 134GB of data after transcoding to Apple ProRes 4444, but when CRM becomes compatible with Adobe Premiere I won’t have to transcode anymore. If you use one of the supported apps for editing you can also save that extra disk space.
In comparison, the Sony a7S II records UHD at 100 Mbps, so it requires 12GB of storage for the same 16 minutes of recording time.
In comparison, the new Panasonic EVA1 records 4K at up to 400 Mbps, so it requires up to 48GB of storage for the same 16 minutes of recording time.
So to put things in perspective, in order to get RAW quality from the Canon C200 you need about 10 times as much storage space as when recording 8 bit on a Sony a7S II and about 2-3 times as much space as when recording 10 bit on the Panasonic EVA1. For many this will not be viable, because they simply need to record too much footage or they don’t have the extra processing power and time required to work with RAW. For me personally, I’m a convinced RAW shooter – I love to get the best out of my footage and I love to edit, and the extra space and additional rendering is worth it for me.
Canon C200 CFast 2.0 Slot
What About 150 Mbit MP4 – Worthless?
Oh, about that one. I must admit, like many others, at first I was disappointed by the low-spec 8-bit codec alternative the C200 had to offer on paper. 150 Mbps sounds underwhelming and we can get the same from most mirrorless cameras nowadays, can’t we? In theory yes, but the mp4 from the C200 is really not bad, and I would argue that it can hold up pretty well against most other 8-bit cameras.
Here are two jpeg screen grabs. Note that this is not a scientific test.
Canon C200 Review – 8 bit UHD MP4 – graded
Canon C200 Review – 12 bit 4K RAW – graded
Canon uses two green channels as on all other C cameras in order to get more accurate color information out of the 8-bit space. I was surprised by how well mp4 worked. It is certainly a usable alternative that makes sense in broadcast and documentary, but don’t expect to get 12-bit RAW quality from an 8-bit mp4. The video is certainly softer and a bit more mushy.
ungraded, 100% crop
Slow motion in 120fps works very well too. Even though the resolution is only HD, those HD images are quite good. They are down-sampled from a full sensor readout and they look very nice at first glance. Unfortunately, I noticed a bit of aliasing and moire in the slow motion footage, where it often became visible in contrasty areas with fine lines.
HD slow motion recording at 120fps | visible moiré pattern in the water.
For those who still need more than the MP4 the C200 currently has to offer, Canon announced that their XF-AVC video format will be available via a free Canon C200 firmware upgrade coming in Q1 2018.
Please note: The camera tested was still on a beta firmware. I think it is unlikely that the aliasing is firmware related, but it should be mentioned none the less.
Canon C200 Review – The Shooting Experience
RAW was what most people were interested in regarding the Canon C200. But for many shooters, ergonomics and reliability is another key aspect when it comes to evaluating a camera. Canon has certainly put a lot of their camera-making experience into the Canon C200. The result is a well-rounded and powerful cinema camera package that mostly works in tandem with the operator.
Auto Focus!
The auto focus on the Canon C200 convinced me. Canon’s Dual Pixel Auto Focus is simply better than what other cinema cameras have to offer. It works. I had it enabled for most of the shots with the Canon 100mm F/2.8 L Macro Lens that I used for this C200 review. With a tap of the touchscreen you can direct your focus to the right part of the picture.
Canon C200 with Canon 100mm F/2.8 L Macro Lens
Focus Assist!
This is a great feature that Canon introduced with the Canon C300 mark II. The focus assistant tells you when your subject is in focus. If it is not, three arrows indicate if your focus is in front of or behind the subject. This is very convenient, and allowed me to rarely need the magnify button for focusing, because I could just rely on the focus assist.
Overall Build Quality
The Canon C200 is a solid and ergonomic tool that feels rugged yet compact and light. The new Canon EOS C200 weighs 1.4kg, while in comparison, the C300 mark II weighs about 1.8kg and the C100 mark II weighs 1.1kg. Considering that this camera shoots RAW, I think a weight of 1.4kg is really good. The new top handle has improved over previous C cameras and feels very solid with several added mounting options.
Fast, Easy Menu
Canon has always had a good menu structure. It is also true for the C200. It was easy and intuitive to use.
10-stop ND
The Canon C200 has 2 separate rotating filter stages. This gives you a lot of flexibility and a range of up to 10 stops of ND filtration. This is extremely handy and lets you work with shallow depth of field even in very bright sunlight without the need for an external filter. Also, with the perfectly balanced internal NDs there is no color shift.
Built-in Connections
Unlike previous C cameras, the Canon C200 has the XLRs built into the body, which is a great improvement. The connectors and buttons sit in the right places for me. There is HDMI and SDI out and, contrary to some rumours out there, I can confirm that both of them output your Canon Log signal. You can also apply LUTs to individual outputs. There is no Canon Log 2 on the C200.
Proxy Recording
For some people who want an efficient workflow with RAW, the 35 Mbps proxy recordings in 2K will be a welcome feature. Proxys are recorded to SD cards. The camera has 2 SD slots, by the way.
Battery Life
One battery lasted for more than 2 hours. I never switched off the camera.
Canon C200 Review – What I Didn’t Like
Overall, I had a great experience shooting with the Canon C200. For me it opens up a lot of possibilities, mostly because of its low price and excellent all-round performance that delivers 12-bit RAW. But there are still some things that caught my attention in a negative way.
The Touchscreen
Yes, the whole screen attachment was definitely improved over previous C cameras. When you’ve worked with one of the older models, then you know it can be a bit flimsy, bulky and limiting. The C200’s new screen attachment, on the other hand, is stiff and it is easy to reposition the screen to where you need it and even detaching, which was not possible before. However, after a while the screen started to tilt sideways, because the screw at the front got loose. This has been the same on previous C cameras, something I guess users will have to continue to live with.
Another thing was that during my shoot the screen was not very bright. In direct sunlight I couldn’t see and I was forced to use the small EVF at the back. Later, a Canon representative showed me that the brightness can be dialled up in the menu. I am not sure how much this increases the screen backlight, so this is a point that would require another round of testing. However, I am pretty sure the C200 screen will not be able to hold up against the latest high-bright screens that are so convenient to work with, like the new smallHD FOCUS. If you use a third-party screen though, you will lose the touchscreen functionality on the C200, which is especially useful when using auto focus. The Canon EVF-V70 would probably be a great solution, but is a bit pricey.
No ProRes?
Now I’m being demanding, but just imagine this camera with Apple ProRes codec integration. This is exactly what the C700 offers, but it is a camera in a different price class. With Apple ProRes HQ 10-bit, the Canon C200 would be a perfect fit for everyone and for most of my projects. Unfortunately, the large divide between 12-bit RAW and 8-bit MP4 is just what the Canon C200 is, and for the price, I must say I’ll accept it gladly.
Aliasing in Slow Motion
As I mentioned earlier, there is some aliasing and moiré in 120p slow motion recordings. While the resolution and look is nice, the aliasing aspect makes it a little less exciting for me. Most people probably won’t notice.
Conclusion
As I said at the beginning, it is really hard for me not to like the Canon C200. For $6,000 this camera does almost everything a cinema camera shooter could wish for. The 12-bit 4K RAW quality lives up to the expectations of the word “RAW”. At the same time, the C200 makes the RAW process easy and relatively affordable as you just need a third of the storage space of uncompressed RAW and you can record to CFast 2.0 cards. In a few months Premiere will support the new Cinema RAW Light format natively, as will other major apps, so if your machine is powerful enough, you won’t even need to transcode.
Add to that the fact that this camera offers the best auto focus any cinema camera currently has to offer, face detection, the convenient focus assist feature, great low-light qualities and a rugged, reliable, ergonomic body with up to 10 stops of built-in ND. Honestly, I find the price of this camera surprisingly low. The Sony a7S II costs almost $3,000 and is simply a small (yet impressive) mirrorless camera with 8-bit at 100 Mbps, and certainly in a different league than the C200. Even the URSA Mini Pro is currently $6,000, and people will have to think long and hard if the ProRes formats it offers are worth it in comparison to the new Canon C200.
So far, it has seemed like Canon have mostly done “their own thing”, always pricing their cameras at twice the cost of the rest of the pack. But the Canon C200 is a game changer in that regard, and a clear sign that will challenge the competition. How will Sony, Panasonic and Blackmagic respond?
The Canon C200 is available for pre-order now and will start shipping at the beginning of August 2017. I hope you liked my Canon C200 Review – if it was helpful to you we’d appreciate if you used the buy links below to one of our unbiased sponsors. If you have any questions or thoughts, please let me know in the comments.
Canon C200 vs C200B
The body-only version (Canon C200B) is only available in the US and costs $6,000. If you want the LCD, top handle with mic attachment, side handle and EVF, you’ll have to put down another $2,500 for the “full version”. In terms of media, Canon told me they recommend to use SanDisk 128GB Cfast 2.0 or SanDisk 256GB Cfast 2.0 cards for RAW recording and SanDisk 64GB U3 SD cards for MP4 recording.

Sony have announced a massive rebate for Sony FS5 purchases. Could it be they’re feeling the heat from the competition with the recent Canon C200 and Panasonic AU-EVA1 announcements?
If you have been looking to purchase a Sony FS5, now is the time: Sony is offering up a bundled package of the FS5 and a Metabones EF to E mount Smart Adapter, with a $1,000 mail-in rebate through B&H. The total cost of this would usually come to over $6,000, but with the rebate you can expect to pay around the $5,700 mark. It’s a fantastic offer, and an interesting move by Sony.
What may have lead Sony to take this kind of action?
Much like the a7 range of mirrorless cameras, the Sony FS5 has been a reason for many videographers and filmmakers to switch from the likes of Canon, who lacked the implementation of highly-desired video features such as 4K or slow motion in the 5D Mark IV, or simply outpriced potential customers with the C300 Mark II. The PXW-FS5 became the camera of choice for many, with its 4K sensor, electronic ND filter and 4K RAW upgrade, despite this being a paid upgrade.
This all changed last week when both Canon and Panasonic announced feature packed-cameras in the form of the C200, and AU-EVA1. Finally 4K, slow motion and internal RAW recording is accessible under the $10,000 price bracket, with both cameras offering interesting unique selling points. On the one hand, Canon’s fast and accurate Dual Pixel CMOS auto focus, RAW internal recording in ‘Cinema RAW Light’ format and high performance in low light. On the other, the Panasonic AU-EVA1 offers up a 5.7K sensor, native EF lens mount and 4:2:2 10 bit colour depth. It’s evidently enough to rub Sony up the wrong way.
You can read more about the Canon C200 and Panasonic AU-EVA1 by following the links.
The relatively low-cost adapters from Metabones offer a second life to EF lenses, with many Sony camera owners using existing EF-mount lenses rather than purchasing native E-mount lenses from Sony or ZEISS. Now that Panasonic have included a native EF mount on the AU-EVA1 rather than their traditional Micro Four-Thirds, it could make the AU-EVA1 a more attractive camera to current Canon users.
This price drop from Sony could be a nudge to potential customers looking for a mid-range camera to finally invest or convert manufacturers, especially due to the higher cost of the competitors’ cameras (around the $8,000 mark), and their lead time until shipping. The Sony FS5 is mid way through its life cycle, with no suggestion of an updated model, hence the need to keep an interest in the current camera lineup.
Unfortunately, this fantastic offer is only available in America, with no rebate available (or announced yet) in Europe or the rest of the world. Why Sony have only made this region-specific is another unanswered question, and will no doubt enrage European customers looking to purchase the FS5.
The PXW-FS5K package which includes the 18-105mm F/4 lens can also be purchased with the $1000 rebate.
The mail-in Sony rebate offer including the Metabones EF to E mount Smart Adapter will run until the end of June, and the rebate-only offer running until the end of July. They are available at B&H.
Will you be purchasing a Sony PXW-FS5 now it has a $1000 rebate? If not, are you waiting for the Canon C200 or Panasonic AU-EVA1? Let us know in the comments.

At Cine Gear 2017, I had a chance to look at the Canon C200 up close, and ask a Canon representative directly what were the thoughts behind creating this camera. Please read my recent post, “Who is the C200 for?”, in case you missed it.
[Update:]
I state in the video that you cannot have Log out of the HDMI and SDI. This is incorrect information and will be a useful feature for some shooters.
We want to assure our customers that you can record in LOG over the HDMI and SDI ports on the camera.
[Update 2:] Our Canon C200 Review has been published and you can see it here: LINK
Canon C200 – Handling
First of all, what’s really striking is how well thought-out the size and handling of the camera is – they have clearly enhanced the familiar C300 / C500 / C300 Mark II design since its inception. The whole handle part on top is now finally very sturdy and solid, along with the monitor itself. It feels like a serious piece of gear that won’t break under constant use, whereas the handle part on my original C300 got loose after a few months of shooting with the camera. Canon also managed to get rid of the screws that were used on the C300 Mark II, so you don’t need an allen key to remove the handle anymore – through a smarter thumb-screw design, you are now able to remove the handle and monitor on the Canon C200 only by hand.
The camera body is more compact than a C300 Mark II but looks extremely similar. I can even see how people will mix up the two cameras when the top parts aren’t attached. One certain way to differentiate them is that the XLR ports on the Canon C200 are on the camera itself and not in the top handle/monitor section anymore. This is great news because it means we can finally have professional audio inputs when we want to stay minimal or when we go to a gimbal or something similar.
Monitor
The monitor itself is crisp and clear, seems to offer high resolution, and the new mechanism allows it to be twisted in virtually any position and even moved on the handle itself. The touch-screen functions work well in conjunction with the Dual Pixel autofocus, which seems to work remarkably well with this camera.
Codec – high and low and at the same time
I also asked the most apparent question: why is the only efficient codec in this camera of such low quality? Of course, it’s to protect the market of the C300 Mark II, which is still a more expensive camera. At the same time, it can do a raw light codec which will eat 128 GB of storage for 15 minutes of footage – great for high-end quality, but tough to deal with for the indie shooter. My questions to Canon about the camera focused on that fact.
Conclusion
With the C200, Canon certainly has a very strong offering in their hands and I can see this becoming a very successful camera. However, it could be much more successful if it recorded in the proper codecs like its bigger sibling, the C300 Mark II. We’ll do our best to get our hands on the C200 and shoot with it as soon as possible for a proper review, so stay tuned until later this week to see some footage from this new camera.
How do you think the Canon C200 stacks up agains the recently-announced Panasonic EVA1? Let us know in the comments below!